Talk:Kirill Razumovsky

Something is wrong with the title. For whatever reason somebody continues to change it to Kyrulo Rozumovsky even though the real name was Kyrylo Rozumovsky. What is the reason??? Is that some kind of joke?? It looks very corny. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fixed this whole mess. If people stop messing around with the name and leave it at a stable title there will be no more issues. Is it that hard for people to accept that a title is a title but it matters more what is in the text itself?   DDima 02:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

There appear to be a number of articles that have attracted WP:OR changes to the content without the use of any form of reliable sources for citations. How did Kyrylo Rozumovskyi suddenly become the Russified version of his name "Kirill Grigoryevich Razumovsky" just for starters? If there is some for of evidence that this has any form of basis in reality, by all means bring it to this talk page instead of changing long-standing content to reflect personal POV 'interpretations' as to who he was. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• As the original author of this text I would like to know how the article about Kirill Razumovsky was suddenly renamed in its 9th year of existence. Regardless of ethnicity, using the modern Ukrainian transliteration is NOT appropriate for historical figures of the 18th century. Let's check English-language published sources: 8 results for Kyrylo (mostly Ukraine-related publications) vs. 243 hits for Kirill. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your sources for the use of 'Kirill' are predominantly of this ilk: Kathleen Berton Murrell who is not a scholar, but lived in Moscow for a time and wrote non peer-reviewed works as interest pieces; "Eighteenth-century Russian Music" by Marina Ritzarev (an Israeli musicologist, the bulk of whose works are written in Russian and whose two English language works are sourced from the Russian language); Edvard Radzinsky who is a prolific Russian writer, not an academic; a translation of the Russian language course book by V.O. Kliuchevski (see the translator's note regarding transliteration of the original text); a book by Mark Schrad on the history of alcoholism in Russia. Considering that the New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1986 edition) uses Kyrylo Razumovsky, I don't see how you can justify eliminating the use of Kyrylo. Nor, considering the number of convolutions of the transliteration of the name into other languages, including English (as documented in a large number of sources), is there any justification for presenting the Russified variant as if it were the one and only. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Well Britanica seems to use "Kyrylo Rozumovsky" spelling (see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612921/Ukraine/30069/The-autonomous-hetman-state-and-Sloboda-Ukraine#ref404457 ), I could not find them using any Russified version of the name for this guy. Encyclopedia of Ukraine is using Kyrylo Rozumovsky as well, see http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CR%5CO%5CRozumovskyKyrylo.htm , they are biased in the matter but still... Columbia seems to ignore this guy entirely. Most online encyclopedias just mirror Wikipedia. I am not fully convinced either way but incline to "Kyrylo Rozumovsky", after all he is mostly notable as a hetman, and in the absence of an established English name we probably should use Ukrainian spelling as he is mostly notable as a Ukrainian ruler. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Dear Alex Bakharev, the main problem here is that Kirill Razumovsky received his name together with his title of Count and of Hetman from Russian Empress. So it is simply not correct to use Ukrainian form of his name, because official language of nomenclature in Russian Empire was Russian language. Secondly, Ghirla is absolutely right: Regardless of ethnicity, using the modern Ukrainian transliteration is NOT appropriate for historical figures of the 18th century. And thirdly, all children of Razumovsky were Russian nobles, for example Kirill Razumovsky was married to Ekaterina Naryshkina. If we use Ukrainified form of the surname Razumovsky, then we have a discrepancy between his last name and the last name of his children. It is an absurd, but to use the Ukrainified form of his last name for his descendants is a squared absurd. Ушкуйник (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree that the argument about other members of the family unquestionably having russified English names is a valid argument. Still there are a huge number of cases on enwiki of the members of the same family having different spelling of the last name because of the different tradition in English language. I guess WP:UE trumps all other arguments, if the general academic tradition is to use a particular spelling of the name e.g. Tchaikovsky or Leo Tolstoy, etc. then the rules of Russian/Ukrainian transliteration are irrelevant. I searched available online Encyclopedias and found only the Ukrainified version of the name. If somebody would point out English-language encyclopedias/college textbooks/etc. that use Russified name I will happily change my opinion (so to keep the names of the members of the same noble family consistent). Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • The Ukraine-centred sources use the Ukrainian spelling, whereas the Russia-centred sources use the Russian spelling. I have not been able to locate a single 18th-century source in English, German or French which uses the Ukrainian spelling. You may check his son's books. Kirill would have been astonished to read this discussion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Dear Alex Bakharev, look for example 1, 2, 3. I hope these sources are enought reliable, to prove the correction of using here of Russian form of his name. 213.127.164.178 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear all of you: what a load of WP:OR WP:BOLLOCKS. The entire bio is written in appallingly bad English full of common Russophone errors which I can spot a mile off: the use of the indefinite article where it is redundant, confusing the definite and indefinite article. I won't even bother to list the other glaring syntactical errors attesting further to this. The most important point is that it entirely omits the fact that Kyrylo Rozumovskyi became the last Hetman as he was the final one who attempted to create a sovereign Het'manate state (not Little Russia). The significance of his role in history has been summarised as being "In 1750, Razumovsky was elected and subsequently appointed Hetman of Zaporizhian Host, a title he held until Catherine II of Russia abolished this title in 1764, from 1764 Razumovsky was upgraded to Field marshal of Russian Army." Are you kidding?

You're welcome to plead your case to Alex until the cows come home, or look to German texts transliterating his name per Gregory's Russification (that is, Russophone pronunciation where, from the written Russian Cyrillic, the first 'o' is pronounced as an 'a', and 'и' is pronounced as 'i' instead of 'y' (or the Russian 'ы'). He was not his fifth son, Grigory Razumovsky, nor his brother: he was the last Het'man of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, and would not have considered that title abolished to become a Field Marshal in the Russian army an 'upgrade'.

My mother was the godmother to a member of one of Kyrylo's direct lineage living in Poltava. Most members of the family were exclusively Russophones but pronounced their name as their progeny still pronounce it: Rozumovs'kyi, written in Russian as 'Розумовськый' (the initial 'o' pronounced as 'o', not 'a', plus including the 'мягкий знак'/'м’який знак').

"Kirill would have been astonished to read this discussion." Yes, Ghirlandajo, I'm ready to wager on that!... and will pursue it further once I have some pressing IRL matters attended to and finalised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Iryna, we should thank Aleksandr Grigoryev for these edits. This is my original version of the page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Iryna Harpy, that what you try to make here, is just some kind of manipulation, just to protect the pathetic mythology about Razumovsky and the History of Hetmanate in 18. Century. I'm not so sure, which sources you have read about Kirill Razumovsky, but in fact the title of Hetman of Zaporozhian Host was revived by Empress Elisabeth of Russia with the express purpose: to give Kirill Razumovsky some power and territories, just because she loved his brother and wanted such a way demonstrate it. De facto (!) the whole power at the time of Razumovsky's Hetmanate was in hands of Gregory Teplov, he was the head of Hetmanate's chancellery. So there wasn't any Hetmanate after Mazepa, but only Collegium of Little Russia (without any title of Hetman). After Elisabeth of Russia, Catherine II didn't want to have Hetmanate anymore (it was the Age of Absolutismus). The hetmanate after Peter the Great was just a whimsy of Empress Elisabeth. Sure Kirill Razumovsky tried to make something with this puppet government, he tried to keep his power on the area of Little Russia, which was granted him, but he couldn't. The problem was not only in his connections with Catherine II, the problem was in corruption and in his kinsfolk, which always wanted to have more power. See about it Gregory Teplov's «О непорядках, которые происходят от злоупотребления прав и обыкновений, грамотами подтвержденных Малороссии». Catherine II didn't had a point to destroy Razumovsky's life, that's why after Hetmanate Kirill Razumovsky was a Field marshal, it was real possibility for him to live to one's heart's content.

Secondly, I don't understand your note about Little Russia: "Rozumovskyi became the last Hetman as he was the final one who attempted to create a sovereign Het'manate state (not Little Russia)". Excuse me, but Little Russia was the only official term for so called Hetmanate in 18. Century, even in letters of Razumovsky (see: the Little Russia Prikase, Collegium of Little Russia etc.), that's why it is just not correct to make an opposition between Hetmanate as a "state" and Little Russia.

Thirdly, I am very glad, that you have some common roots with Razumovsky, but it is not an argument for this Encyclopaedia. Though if you want talk this way about the problem of the transiteration of surname Razumovsky, I would like to say, that I know some Razumovsky personaly, and none of them use the form 'Розумовськый'.

Best wishes, Ушкуйник (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Iryna, can you elaborate what statement in the current version of the article, you think is biased. The only POV discussion I see on the talk is regarding the article title and you seem to support the present title. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Iryna, he article has some references (specified as "External links" and "Literature", although no in-lines. It was mostly written before the format for inline references became common. Can you elaborate what passages appear to be original research to you?

Also is Chronos such an offensively biased source that it should be removed from the article? The article seems to be under-sourced (especially since not many people have access to the German book). Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no qualms about the use of XPOHOC with care, Alex Bakharev. Works from there, as with ІЗБОРНИК, need to be attributed unless there is no doubt of what the mainstream view is.

What I do have problems with is the refactoring Kyrylo Rozumovskyi's name using the German (not English spelling) rather than the Ruthenian (otherwise known as Ukrainian in the 21st century) name. I'm not particularly concerned as much concerned with the Russified version being used here as I am with Ушкуйник's playing around with the WP:COMMONNAME in various articles surrounding the family: i.e., he has now changed the "Razumovsy" article to Rasumofsky based on his executive WP:OR decision that it is the most common usage of the name. Where? Austria and Germany (see Palais Rasumofsky)? Sorry, but this isn't German language Wikipedia. Just because English uses Latin script, German does not dictate appropriate English Wikipedia usage, and it isn't appropriate to makes a dog's breakfast out of WP:TITLE to the point where any relationship between the family, street names, palaces, etc. are obfuscated for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply